Philosophy Now Forum

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:49 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 7:54 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 7:52 am
Sure, and is this random or...what would lead you to pick option 235 over all the other billions or trillions of options?

Free will.

I'm refreshing you on the context of this conversation. You said the thing that leads to option 235, which is a *specific choice*, is free will. But then you said free will doesn't lead to a specific choice. Surely you see why Iwannaplato and I aren't finding that very satisfactory, right? If free will doesn't lead to a specific choice, then free will alone didn't lead to 235.

what would lead you to pick option 235?

I said free will leads to any specific choice, including 235, not just a single specific one. Are you asking why 235 and not 236 or any other one? Because 235 was chosen out of free will.

What is the question?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:55 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:49 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 7:54 am
Free will.

I'm refreshing you on the context of this conversation. You said the thing that leads to option 235, which is a *specific choice*, is free will. But then you said free will doesn't lead to a specific choice. Surely you see why Iwannaplato and I aren't finding that very satisfactory, right? If free will doesn't lead to a specific choice, then free will alone didn't lead to 235.

what would lead you to pick option 235?

I said free will leads to any specific choice, including 235, not just a single specific one. Are you asking why 235 and not 236 or any other one? Because 235 was chosen out of free will.

What is the question?

Is there a *reason* why it was 235 and not 236?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:15 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:03 pmBut, some, or maybe a lot of what I say here gets missed.

That's down to you.

I could say and argue, 'not always'.

But, considering that I am writing in a very specific and purposeful way, I will again take absolute FULL responsibility for all that happens and occurs here.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:15 pm People miss your posts because you make it too much effort to interact.

If you, or any one, were to pick absolutely any post of mine here, in this forum, to 'look at' and take as 'an example', what can, and will be, clearly seen is that, actually, 'my posts' were not at all 'too much of an effort to interact with'. Well not after a first glance, anyway.

And, to 'see' if this is actually True, or not, please feel free to 'grab' any post of mine and present it here, and 'we' just have a Truly open, honest, and peaceful discussion about it.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:15 pm You spend so many words saying things like "But I have already, in the days when this was written, given the path to do this thing which is the one and only right way and the people, in the days when this was written, didn't listen".

Maybe I did this for a very specific reason?

Maybe I was doing this to show, and prove, how 'older people', really, are not 'listening', and not 'hearing' what 'younger people' are, and have been, saying, and revealing.

Only through 'trying' and 'doing' 'the thing' that I have said, and talked about, could I then be proved Wrong. Until then, 'just maybe' it can, and will, work.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:15 pm That's too many fucking words, and not a single one of them is useful.

If this is what 'you believe' is true, then there are 'too many fucking words', to and for 'you'. But, just maybe, each and every single one of those words is very, very useful for, exactly, what I want to do, and what I am doing, and am achieving, here.

It would 'now' appear that 'those words', literally, mean absolutely nothing at all to you. Is this correct?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:15 pm Instead of all of that, just say the thing. Say it again. Repeat yourself. Don't say "I already have given the path" in a hundred words, just write the path again.

If you, really, wanted to 'know' some thing, then you could just 'ask for it'.

For example, do you know what is the easiest way to get, or take out, what someone is holding in the hand?

If you do not, then it is to just 'ask them' for it.

Absolutely any other way would just involve some effort or struggle.

If some one 'wants' some thing, especially in regards to knowing and understanding what another means', exactly, then just 'asking them' is the most simplest and easiest way.

But, obviously, like 'the thing' in 'the hand', only if one is 'interested' or 'curious' 'about it', and, really, do 'want it', then this is, only, when they will 'ask for it'.

The very reason why I have been writing 'all of what I have' is to show that adults have 'grown up' not, really, interested in, nor curious about, 'finding out' what others are actually meaning. Adults prefer to 'just assume', and 'go on', 'from there', instead.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:15 pm People aren't going to trawl through every post of yours to read the thing you said a week ago. Make it easy for people to know what you mean.

'The way' I have been alluding to is that 'the easiest' way for people to know what each other means is to just 'ask them'.

Any other way is just a struggle, or takes effort.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:15 pm Like you did in that post i liked.

This is what 'you like', but did you notice how when you were opening, and listening, then 'you liked it', but what will also be noticed is that you are not open, and thus not listening, will not just not like it, they will, literally, hate it because they will be presuming or believing something else instead.

Also, I could keep doing what 'you like', but this does not mean that another will like it as well, and then I will have to find out what it is that 'they like', instead.

But, considering two of you have acknowledged what I said, I will just express my views, and what I see, again.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:59 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:55 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:49 pm

I'm refreshing you on the context of this conversation. You said the thing that leads to option 235, which is a *specific choice*, is free will. But then you said free will doesn't lead to a specific choice. Surely you see why Iwannaplato and I aren't finding that very satisfactory, right? If free will doesn't lead to a specific choice, then free will alone didn't lead to 235.

what would lead you to pick option 235?

I said free will leads to any specific choice, including 235, not just a single specific one. Are you asking why 235 and not 236 or any other one? Because 235 was chosen out of free will.

What is the question?

Is there a *reason* why it was 235 and not 236?

Maybe, maybe not. You have free will so I guess you can freely choose with or without reason.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 1:02 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:59 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:55 pm
I said free will leads to any specific choice, including 235, not just a single specific one. Are you asking why 235 and not 236 or any other one? Because 235 was chosen out of free will.

What is the question?

Is there a *reason* why it was 235 and not 236?

Maybe, maybe not. You have free will so I guess you can freely choose with or without reason.

If there was no reason, then it's just random, and thus nothing free about that will.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 1:03 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 1:02 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:59 pm

Is there a *reason* why it was 235 and not 236?

Maybe, maybe not. You have free will so I guess you can freely choose with or without reason.

Is there a reason why you'd choose without a reason?

I don't think there has to be - maybe I'm even doing it right now without knowing.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:17 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:16 pm

But it's useful, you claim to know that there's no free will but you don't.

FJ's rewind example clearly shows that free-will defined as "the ability to act differently" doesn't exist.

I wouldn't say it necessarily "doesn't exist", but that if it did exist, it wouldn't be because of *you* or your will.

It's totally possible we live in a universe where we rewind to the exact same state, press play again and something different happens.

I do not see how that this is 'at all' possible, let alone 'totally possible'.

Will you explain how 'this' could be possible?

I could explain how and why I see that it is not possible, at all. That is if absolutely any one is interested. But, I would like to see how it is 'totally possible', first.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:17 pm It's just not, in my view, justifiable to call that 'free will' or make that the basis for free will.

When you say, 'that' here, what are you referring to, exactly?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:17 pm Age, take note of how I posted my thoughts above.

I did. Just like I have in each and every post I read here, from every one.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:17 pm I didn't say anything about how people back in the days didn't do such-and-such, I just wrote what I think.

But, you could have a whole different motive for posting here, correct?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:17 pm More of that please Age.

But, if I had done that earlier, then I would have missed out on a lot of what I have wanted to show, and reveal, here.

Also, I could say and express what 'I like', which would be for you to follow up on, and elaborate on and clarify, my questions here.

But, this forum, nor what others do, is not centered around what 'I like', at all. So, I will not ask 'you' to do what 'I like'.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 1:08 pm But, if I had done that earlier, then I would have missed out on a lot of what I have wanted to show, and reveal, here.

you've failed to reveal anything interesting to anybody with all that.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 1:04 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 1:03 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 1:02 pm
Maybe, maybe not. You have free will so I guess you can freely choose with or without reason.

Is there a reason why you'd choose without a reason?

I don't think there has to be - maybe I'm even doing it right now without knowing.

So people just make choices randomly. And you call that free. That doesn't seem free to me.

To the contrary, if all my choices were random, I'd feel trapped in a hell-like prison I can't escape!

I prefer the freedom to make choices for reasons. Not to be a slave to randomness. That's what seems like freedom to me.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 1:13 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 1:04 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 1:03 pm

Is there a reason why you'd choose without a reason?

I don't think there has to be - maybe I'm even doing it right now without knowing.

So people just make choices randomly. And you call that free. That doesn't seem free to me.

It can be random and it can be not random. So overall it's not random.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 1:15 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 1:13 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 1:04 pm
I don't think there has to be - maybe I'm even doing it right now without knowing.

So people just make choices randomly. And you call that free. That doesn't seem free to me.

It can be random and it can be not random. So overall it's not random.

I don't see why overall it's not random. If it's sometimes random, why is it overall not random?
And why are we rolling our eyes now?

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:23 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:17 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:16 pm FJ's rewind example clearly shows that free-will defined as "the ability to act differently" doesn't exist.

I wouldn't say it necessarily "doesn't exist", but that if it did exist, it wouldn't be because of *you* or your will.

It's totally possible we live in a universe where we rewind to the exact same state, press play again and something different happens. It's just not, in my view, justifiable to call that 'free will' or make that the basis for free will.

I get that if a different choice was made, then it would be randomness and not an expression of one's will. And it wouldn't be any sort of freedom, since in effect one would be the 'victim' of randomness.

To me, it is impossible to choose 'differently', next time. (I can explain why, fully, but I am waiting to find out why "flannel jesus" claimed that something different could happen and/or could exist.)

The exact same applies, by the way, to exactly how if 'you' were in another body', then 'you', and 'that body', would be doing, exactly, what that person and body is doing, 'currently'. Which, by the way, when this is fully understood leads to fully understanding how and why absolutely every one does what they do, which then leads on to True 'forgiveness', and absolutely NO 'judging' of any one, as well. Which all leads on to 'where' this is all going, by the way.

But, 'one step at a time', as it is said.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 1:16 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 1:15 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 1:13 pm

So people just make choices randomly. And you call that free. That doesn't seem free to me.

It can be random and it can be not random. So overall it's not random.

I don't see why overall it's not random. If it's sometimes random, why is it overall not random?
And why are we rolling our eyes now?

Because you are free to choose to have reasons which makes it not random.

And I'm rolling my eyes because at this point you're like VA with his "God is impossible" or "realism is impossible" crusades. Let's destroy the concept of free will.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:23 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 8:10 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 8:05 am Could you define the will part of that phrase? Free will leads to the speciic choice you make....what does that mean?

It doesn't lead to a specific choice, it leads to any specific choice you want.

So what leads to the *one choice* then?

As I have said before, 'past experiences' leads to absolutely each and every choice.

Every one has 'the ability to choose' [free will]. But, what each and every one can choose from is limited, and is/was pre-determined [determinism].

Also, what is 'chosen', was predetermined as well, [Again determinism], and again solely because of 'past experiences', alone.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:23 pm That's what he's asking.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:24 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:23 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 12:17 pm

I wouldn't say it necessarily "doesn't exist", but that if it did exist, it wouldn't be because of *you* or your will.

It's totally possible we live in a universe where we rewind to the exact same state, press play again and something different happens. It's just not, in my view, justifiable to call that 'free will' or make that the basis for free will.

I get that if a different choice was made, then it would be randomness and not an expression of one's will. And it wouldn't be any sort of freedom, since in effect one would be the 'victim' of randomness.

Just out of curiosity, do you personally think we live in a world with some randomness? Or is it completely deterministic? And how, in your view, does QM relate to the determinism-or-indeterminism of the universe?

I know you are not asking me but this last question would all depend on what you 'know' about 'quantum mechanics', and whether you are open to that what you have been 'told' or have read about 'quantum mechanics' could be completely or partly False and Wrong, or not.

And, the first two questions would depend, again, on 'your definitions' and whether you are open to other views and definitions, or not.